[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>He thinks everything is spirit then works out a system that he thinks
revels
>Spirit. What a coincidence. This is exactly the sort of thing Kohlberg and
>Gilligan have been criticized for doing.
>
>But once again according to his holarchical model this would make Spirit
>very fundamental but not particularly relevant.
Pirsig likewise identifies everything as originating from primordial
Quality. Is Quality then not relevant to the Metaphysics of Quality? Is
Spirit not relevant to the Phenomenology of Spirit? Shall we criticize
Pirsig for nominating Quality as the One in his monism?
I think your objections to Wilber stem from two misunderstandings of his
system. One is the relationship of *states* of consciousness to
developmental *stages* of consciousness. I'll address that below when the
point arises. The second I'm not so sure about, but it may stem from a
preconception you may have of the nature of Spirit. When I first read that
term in Wilber, I immediately thought God, complete with mythic
interpretations and the grey beard. I don't know if it conjures something
similar for you or not. I don't think that's what he means by the term,
though. I interpret Spirit as a metaphysical null similar to Pirsig's
undefined Quality. It's just the central term of his metaphysics. I see
Spirit as undifferentiated, unmanifest divinity that provides the
ontological "value proposition" for AQAL in the same way that Quality
provides it for MOQ.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>They teach set theory in elementary school now I think, certainly by middle
>school. Venn diagrams and overlapping circles to show the union of sets and
>such.
OK, I'm quite familiar with Venn diagrams and unions and intersections. If
that's all the set theory you're talking about, I'm conversant. I've already
admitted I find some of Wilber's terminology confusing. Since he's trying to
integrate many traditions that use the same words in different ways, I think
that's understandable. However, I don't think it helps his cause. In any
event, what specifically would you express in set theoretic terms rather
than in Wilber's parlance?
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>He claims that because all these "traditions" refer to spiritual
>matter we should swallow them hook line and sinker. But for no particular
>reason I can tell other that veneration of history.
You set him up as a straw man to knock him down.
Wilber thinks that the "wisdom traditions" should be contextualized in an
overarching scheme. He doesn't think they should be dismissed out of hand as
useless myths, but also certainly doesn't accept every claim of every
tradition in a literal fashion. He does think that whatever truth exists in
any tradition should be honored--that's the essence of his integral
approach--but that doesn't mean he accepts every claim, spiritual or
otherwise, as correct.
[Keith]
>Wilber doesn't claim that any supernatural agencies result in altered
states
>of consciousness. He readily admits that there are brain state changes
>associated with meditative practice and the other ways of achieving altered
>conscious states. These are the Right-Hand "exterior" correlates of the
>Left-Hand "interior" states (qualia?) of consciousness. For Wilber, though,
>consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of the brain. He's not a materialist.
>Instead, he believes that consciousness ("interiority") extends down the
>holarchic chain. It is, in some sense, a primal characteristic of Spirit.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>If Spirit is the undetected principle underlying matter and consciousness
is
>not dependant on brain states only correlated to them how can he claim this
>is not supernatural?
I'm not familiar enough with Wilber's view of the mind-matter problem to
tell you, but I suppose he could maintain it in the same ways dualist
philosophers have done so in the past. Perhaps psychophysical parallelism?
More likely, though, he would say that Spirit=Consciousness in the same way
that Pirsig says that Quality=Reality. If I'm right about Wilber in this,
one could argue that each level of manifest reality has its own degree of
consciousness inherent in its evolutionary stage. At our stage of evolution,
we intellectualize the world into subjects and objects, so it seems that
these interior states of consciousness we experience are somehow divorced
from the exterior electrochemical fluctuations of the cerebral cortex.
However, in reality, there is no division as they are different
manifestations of the underlying unity of Spirit. Similarly, Pirsig would
tell you that the whole subject-object division is a deduction from our
primal experience of Quality. The same Quality event that generates our
subjective consciousness creates the appearance of objective brain
correlates.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>These are Piaget's stages of intellectual development:
>
[snip]
>
>We even name these stages of consciousness in our society. We call it First
>Grade, Second Grade... But we general dispense with the color coding except
>perhaps in the lower grades.
Yes, that's Piaget. I'm afraid I missed your point in relaying his
developmental system.
[Keith]
>Since Spirit is the Ground of All Being, it transcends everything. That's
>how I understand Wilber. Spirit is not a higher level of consciousness,
it's
>the Ground from which all manifestation arises.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>Why is this important? What does it add to our understanding of particle
>physics which should be the next step up. What does is explain about
>particle physics that is missing with out it?
I don't think it adds anything to our understanding of particle physics. I
don't happen to think that Pirsig's Quality adds anything to our
understanding of particle physics, either. Whether we call this stuff
evanescent stuff 'matter' or 'low-grade Quality' or 'manifest Spirit'
matters not much to its behavior.
However, the metaphysical system that comes out of such speculation does
have more substantial impact at other levels. I don't know if the phenomenal
world is manifest Spirit or a Quality event, but I can play out some
interesting possibilities if I consider them as one or the other. I sure as
hell don't know what 'matter' is--some weird substance that seems perfectly
stable throughout my daily experience but then probabilistically pops in and
out of existence at the quantum level...
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>But one can as easily say that rational thought transcends and includes
>"higher" states of consciousness. This is the direction that Piaget's work
>points toward. Even taking the Witness along on these trips to higher
>consciousness suggests that they need to be recorded and put into some kind
>of verbal structure to be relevant. This at least to my way of thinking
>makes the rationalization of these states transendant.
I think I take your meaning.
[Keith]
>I'm not entirely sure how to understand the Wilber quote you give above.
Can
>you provide a page number reference?
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>It is several paragraphs into chapter 6 Pre/Trans Fallacy.
OK, thanks, I found it. That paragraph confuses me, too. From my larger
reading of Wilber, Spirit should properly be considered non-, pre-, trans-,
and unprefixed rational, so I don't completely understand why he's
apparently identifying it exclusively as trans- and not pre-rational. The
only way I can make it consilient with my understanding of Wilber's system
is this: Since higher levels of development are more evolved--they transcend
and include more of the Kosmos--they are in a sense "more" spiritual than
lower levels. So "true" spirit is found at the highest stages of
development, not the lowest. This progression of Spirit is similar to
Pirsig's assertion that Intellect is higher Quality than Society, which is
higher Quality than Biology, etc. Remember that Wilber's point in this
section is to rail against New Agers and other mystics who confuse archaic
mythic archetypes and instinctual biological urges with spiritual union.
Similarly, Pirsig, in his own version of the pre-/trans- fallacy, rails
against hippies who worship biological Quality because it's not Social
Quality, when they should be seeking Intellectual Quality instead.
[Keith]
>Not levels, states, and definitely not higher, just different. Take a look
>at the picture you deride: Gross (waking), Subtle (dreaming), Causal
>(dreamless sleep), & Nondual ("union"). Those are different states of
>consciousness, not stages of development in his system. That's why they're
>shown horizontally arranged, not vertically. None of them are any higher
>than the other.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>Where I come from sleep is not a higher state of consciousness than waking.
>What makes these states higher in Wilber's view are disciplines that allow
>one to carry awareness into these states. Again this is taking the rational
>awareness into these typically unconscious states. This is a clear and
>specific case of Wilber having his hierarchy ass backwards.
No, no, no--look again: Wilber does not claim sleep is a higher state of
consciousness than waking. If he were claiming that then I would agree with
you and not give Wilber any credence. However, Wilber's saying something
different: *States* of consciousness are not higher than one another. In his
system, they are just different ways of experiencing. That's why they are
shown horizontally. Developmental *stages* are arranged vertically. *States*
and *stages* are two very different things in Wilber's system.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>As I have said many times, I see Pirsig as offering up westernized Taoism.
>Taoism provides a metaphysical under pinning for Zen. It is Zen minus the
>mysticism.
Zen minus the mythos, yes, but not minus the mysticism. The MOQ is
fundamentally mystic philosophy since it refuses to define its central term.
That's Phaedrus' winning play against the subjective/objective dilemma he
confronts from the faculty in Bozeman. He rearticulates this in Chapter 4 of
*Lila*:
"The term mystic is sometimes confused with occult or supernatural and
with magic and witchcraft but in philosophy it has a different meaning. Some
of the most honored philosophers in history have been mystics: Plotinus,
Swedenborg, Loyola, Shankaracharya and many others. They share a common
belief that the fundamental nature of reality is outside language; that
language splits things up into parts while the true nature of reality is
undivided."
...
"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phædrus had called
Quality in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
doesnt have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of
definition. Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
intellectual abstractions."
[Keith]
>I happen to find value in the distinctions that Wilber makes. While
Pirsig's
>evolutionary levels are great orienting generalizations, they aren't
>fine-grained enough to allow one to gain traction in evaluating many
>situations. Wilber's use of Piaget and Spiral Dynamics & other
developmental
>theories give a very useful vocabulary for exploring both inter- and
>intra-level value conflicts within Pirsig's social and intellectual levels.
[Krimel, Monday, May 28, 2007 22:52]
>I think Pirsig's system provides what is essential in understanding any
>situation. You need to know what is likely to change and what is likely to
>hold still. What is static and what is dynamic. If you can figure that out,
>you will have a handle in the probable state of affairs in the future. You
>won't know exactly because the future is undefined.
Pirsig makes some great distinctions, yes. I think, though, that the
distinctions Wilber makes in co-opting developmental systems like Spiral
Dynamics only enhances the clarity of the ethico-evolutionary levels Pirsig
offers. Breaking these broad levels down with finer-grained divisions such
as those offered by Wilber or by Turchin can only help sort out the
"matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship" between factors under examination
to better reason out our moral judgments.
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
